Momolu Sirleaf v. David Robinson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for injunctive relief pending appeal (FRAP 8) [999958485-3]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999949934-2] Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000097176].. [16-7357]

Appeal: 16-7357

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7357

MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF; ERIC L. PROSHA; JOHN KING; AARON LEWIS;
PETER ROSAS; RYAN SESSOMS; RAY WATSON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DAVID ROBINSON; CURTIS WALL; M. VOSBURG; UNKNOWN HICKS; M.
ROOK; UNKNOWN VARGO; D. WILMOUTH; UNKNOWN CREQUE; C.
PARKER; HAROLD CLARK; M. FORBES,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:15-cv-00552-MHL-RCY)

Submitted: April 28, 2017

Decided: June 8, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Eric L. Prosha, John King, Aaron Lewis, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms,
and Ray Watson, Appellants Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7357

Doc: 31

Filed: 06/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Appellants seek to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing the claims of Aaron
Lewis and Momolu V.S. Sirleaf without prejudice, and ordering that individual actions be
opened for Eric L. Prosha, John King, Peter Rosas, Ryan Sessoms, and Ray Watson. This
court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), and certain
interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The orders that Appellants
seek to appeal are neither final orders nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
Accordingly, we deny the pending motions and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

2